Of course this makes possible the setting up of individual opinion as to what is for the good of the group in opposition to tradition and custom.  This is, of course, dangerous if it is mere opinion or if it is carried to an extreme.  Few men have the gift of seeing what makes for social well-being beyond that of the society of thoughtful people of their time.  And yet if a man has the insight, if his investigations point to a greater good for the group from doing something which is different from the standards held by his peers, then morality requires that he do his utmost to bring about such changes.  If it is borne in mind that every man is the product of his age and that it is evolution, not revolution, that is constructive, this essential of true morality will not seem so dangerous.  All the reformers the world has ever seen, all the pioneers in social service, have been men who, living up to their individual responsibility, have acted as they believed for society’s best good in ways that were not in accord with the beliefs of the majority of their time.  Shirking responsibility, not living up to what one believes is right, is immoral just as truly as stealing from one’s neighbor.

The fourth essential in moral conduct is that it be for the social good.  It is the governing of impulses, the inhibition of desires that violate the good of the group, and the choice of conduct that forwards its interests.  This does not mean that the group and the individual are set over against each other, and the individual must give way.  It means, rather, that certain impulses, tendencies, motives, of the individual are chosen instead of others; it means that the individual only becomes his fullest self as he becomes a social being; it means that what is for the good of the group in the long run is for the good of the units that make up that group.  Morality, then, is a relative term.  What is of highest moral value in one age may be immoral in another because of change in social conditions.  As society progresses, as different elements come to the front because of the march of civilization, so the acts that are detrimental to the good of the whole must change.  To-day slander and stealing a man’s good name are quite as immoral as stealing his property.  Acts that injure the mental and spiritual development of the group are even more immoral than those which interfere with the physical well-being.

A strong will is not necessarily indicative of a good character.  A strong will may be directed towards getting what gives pleasure to oneself, irrespective of the effect on other people.  It is the goal, the purpose with which it is exercised, that makes a man with a strong will a moral man or an immoral man.  Only when one’s will is used to put into execution those principles that will bring about social progress is it productive of a good character.

Thus it is seen that morality can be discussed only in connection with group activity.  It is the individual as a part of a group, acting in connection with it, that makes the situation a moral one.  Individual morality is discussed by some authors, but common opinion limits the term to the use that has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs.